i expect windows 8 gpu requirements to leave current netbooks outside the circle anyway, regardless of that cpu its running. thats why win7 will be such a long lasting os, because it will be the last to run on legacy hardware. i bet 10-15 years from now many of us will still have a win7 machine in our homes somewhere.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 8 Planned for 2012
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
i expect windows 8 gpu requirements to leave current netbooks outside the circle anyway, regardless of that cpu its running. thats why win7 will be such a long lasting os, because it will be the last to run on legacy hardware. i bet 10-15 years from now many of us will still have a win7 machine in our homes somewhere.
Aren't you glad you just paid for 7, and it's already being planned for replacement?
I'm betting there won't be too many innovative changes. 2012 isn't that far away.
Oh, wait. The world's going to end in 2012 anyway.........don't spend the money, 7 will last you long enough!
Well, Mac people have no problem shelling out 30-100 per year for updates. Its only bad when you buy Vista a month ago and now 7 is out and you are like crap; I agree 7 will last a long time.
I can tell Apple's innovations have become stale since the last update was really just a service pack and they know that too that is why it was only $29 bucks. (Not bashing as I have a 09 MacBook Pro, just making a point).
I don't really buy into the whole every OS thing, I liked Vista, 95 was good, 98 was better and then 200 was even better so really the only public failure I can rack up is ME and that has a lot to do with software vendor's drivers that cause issue with that system.
Citation please. Preferably something recent (as in post atom going mainstream); three years ago it wouldn't've been unreasonable to assume that there would be no new 32bit CPUs for sale by late 08/early09; instead they're still a major chunk of the market. This sort of thing impacts strategic planning since "Your 2 year old computer can't be upgraded" stinks a lot more in PR land than "your 4 year old computer can't be upgraded".
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,418
//[T.0.P]//;1034948337 said:+1
Give me a kick ass, stable OS with XP menus and icons I ain't trying to impress nobody with the looks of my desktop.
Perhaps MS should consider marketing a Geek Edition
Exactly, sorry , top 2 poster you obviously have zero clue about windows 7 or vista for that matter and everything it brings to the table, it inst just a pretty new GUI
but if that is what you want to think, enjoy the stone age of OS's and your ram limitation, poor memory management, bad disk fragmentation, bug ridden, full of security holes OS.Technically, SP2 was supposed to be the successor to XP. Due to security issues with XP, Jim Alchin (sp) insisted that they give away as SP2.
Perhaps they'll offer 32bit support on the starter edition and no others.
I believe that XP dropped support for 16 bit CPUs 6 years after MS's first supported 32-bit. 8 could be very close to to that 6 year mark.
I really don't think there's much risk in dropping 32-bit support. Do you think that many people will upgrade their 2-3 year old netbook from 7 to 8 in 2012?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,418
Yes, just as many people tried to update there 8 year old desktops to vista then complained it was too slow from XP.
The problem isn't netbooks, it's that Intel has sold some core duos and multicore pentium's that are 32-bit only. That's why some people are having trouble installing 64-bit windows now, as in some cases, the support can just depend on when you happened to buy the machine.
and the bit about 16-bit support in XP does not make sense. There's no way in hell that XP ran on a 286, which was the last 16-bit only x86 processor and 32-bit support has been around since NT 3.1 was produced in 1993. 16-bit support was pulled when XP64 was released, except for limited support for certain installers, (several 32-bit programs had 16-bit based installers) If you absolutely need 16-bit support in x64 windows, you need to use a virtual machine.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,140
Businesses always lag behind. Sitting around waiting for them to get on board wouldn't do anything for MS except force them to sell an older OS longer - bad marketing.
Personally, I always lag behind. I let all of you do the crying about problems/ no drivers/ etc. , while I sit back and wait for the SP to roll out - and the major gripes to be fixed.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
Compatibility wasn't completely a vista problem per se. A lot of it was 64 bit issues. I don't recall many great things being said about XP 64 either.
As for "keeping up with OSX releases"... who cares! I'd rather have something that works well and is secure, rather than a new fad. Apple's marketing is almost purely fad-based marketing.
As for "keeping up with OSX releases"... who cares! I'd rather have something that works well and is secure, rather than a new fad. Apple's marketing is almost purely fad-based marketing.
Good for him. XP was (and is) a disaster from a security standpoint. SP2 was a good stopgap solution until Vista came out.
I'm waiting to see in a few hundred years what Microsoft will call the next version of Windows after Windows 94. Maybe recycle "Windows 95" again, since by then, it will have been a distant memory?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,418
They wont and why should they, why put resources into say an 8 year old OS, time to move on and if that means a new computer then so be it, if you don't want to upgrade then accept you may be stuck on an OS that could become less and less secure over time.